================================================================
     MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 93
================================================================
     V E R I C O M M sm                 "Quid veritas est?"
================================================================

The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
views and opinions of VERICOMM or the editors, unless otherwise 
noted.

The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
the author.

Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
copy remain intact and unaltered.

Copy formatted in ASCII. Netscape mail reader format:
"Options/Mail & News Preferences/Appearance" = Fixed Width Font.

================================================================

ACCLAIMED 1991-92 SAN DIEGO GRAND JURY CHILD ABUSE REPORT
DEMONSTRATED TO BE FRAUDULENT BY SUBSEQUENT GRAND JURY

By Alex Constantine

December 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------

In 1992 some 2,300 copies of a report on child abuse were mailed
by a San Diego County grand jury to legislators, newspaper
reporters, social service agencies and college faculty. The
report, "CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ASSAULT AND MOLEST ISSUES," was
touted on network television and in the public print. Even the
liberal Mother Jones magazine, in its July 1996 number, lauded
the efforts of Carol Hopkins, deputy forewoman of the original
San Diego grand jury and organizer of the mailing campaign, for
countering "unfounded allegations" of child abuse. The Mother 
Jones story, written by Judith Levine, was typical of the 
publicity given the report, which claimed "panic" over child 
abuse "seems to sprout from the desert soil of San Diego as 
abundantly as neon fuchsia succulents and bougainvillea":

"The county has been the scene of a string of highly publicized
false allegations of molestation, including satanic ritual abuse,
going back to the 1980s. In 1992, a major grand jury
investigation found the county's child welfare agencies and
juvenile courts to be 'a system out of control,' so keen on
protecting children from predation that it took hundreds of them
away from their parents on what turned out to be false charges.
The report called for 'profound change' throughout the system."

Verbatim copies of the report are available from "men's rights"
organizations and legal advocacy groups on the Internet promoting
the "false memory" thesis of ritual child abuse. Defense
attorneys representing accused pedophiles and ritual abusers have
quoted from it in the courtroom.
	
And much of the report has been proven to be confabulated --
sheared from whole cloth and sewn into a legal parachute for
child abuse defendants facing conviction. In the second,
unpublicized inquiry into claims made in the 1991-92 report, it
was discovered that the first grand jury, chaired by retired Navy
Captain Richard Macfie, had misrepresented case histories, cooked
courtroom testimony and ignored physical evidence of sexual abuse
to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that a "family crisis"
exists in the justice system, that a break-up of families is
endemic, aggravated by overzealous social workers and a fury of
unfounded accusations.
	
The '91-'92 "Families in Crisis" report concluded that the issue
of ritual molestation has "suffered from excessive, sometimes
bordering on hysterical, media attention, reporting of inaccurate
or questionable statistics, and the failure to define and
identify child sexual abuse accurately." In fact, rarely is media
support thrown to victims of ritual child abuse. And the panel's
own handling of facts and statistics can, ironically enough, be
interpreted as an attempt to generate hysteria, to arouse
parental fear of child protective services and promote the
ongoing backlash against ritually abused children and their
advocates.
	
An April 1993 report by the San Diego County Commission on
Children conflicts flatly with the original grand jury's argument
that "children lie about these issues." On the contrary, the
commission's study, cited in the second grand jury's review,
refutes the "false memory" argument and the original panel's
suggestion that children frequently "lie" about sexual 
predation:

"Goodman (1986, 1989) and Saywitz (1989) on children's memory 
and on the reliability of children's allegations of sexual 
abuse ... demonstrate: 1) It is uncommon for children to make 
false allegations about being molested. 2) Children's memories 
are relatively good when compared to adult's memories. 3) Errors 
by children in the recall of events are usually those of 
omission, rather than commission. 4) While children may be more 
suggestible with respect to their memory of peripheral details, 
their recall of significant events that they have experienced, 
rather than things they have merely observed, cannot be easily 
changed or manipulated."

The second grand jury protested that its investigation was
"hampered by missing 1991-92 files" -- a cover-up. The files 
"had been removed from the grand jury offices." A grand total of
"fourteen files were returned on June 14, 1993, following a court
hearing." The review panel's report, completed in 1993, details
serious "flaws" in the '91-92 findings, and uncovers an
unmistakable pattern of misrepresentation, arriving at the
false impression that families are routinely torn asunder by
"unfounded accusations."
	
A review of the original report found more unblushing
falsifications in the presentation of abuse histories from county
files, as evident in the following excerpts:

The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

"[A] school teacher was tried for child abuse after pushing a
child. A jury found her not guilty. It was acknowledged by the
supervising Deputy D.A. that this was a weak case, prosecuted
'to teach a lesson, test the parameter of the law, educate the
public.'"

Review Findings:

"The 1992-93 Grand Jury found there were seven victims. The
defendant was not charged at all due to technical complications
(statute of limitations and lack of witness availability). One
child had been lifted by one arm and thrown into his desk,
another was slapped hard on the head. She also had her hair
pulled. A third child was slapped twice on the head and a fourth
was hit on top of the head during a school assembly.
	
"The children said that the defendant called them such names as
'stupid' or 'idiot.' This teacher's personnel file showed that
she had received ten notices complaining about her inappropriate
use of physical discipline on 8-year-old children. One of them
suggested termination."

The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

"A teenager was prosecuted for felony child molest upon an
allegation by a foster child in his mother's home. There was 
no physical evidence. The D.A.'s office prosecuted despite its
awareness that this child's DSS file contained references to
previous unfounded allegations as well as psychological
evaluations of the child as a pathological liar."

Review Findings:

"The case was based on a report by a 12-year-old boy to his 
social worker. He said that the defendant had molested him 
numerous times during a two-year period by oral copulation, 
sodomy and masturbation/fondling. The abuse began about one 
month after the victim was placed in foster care at the 
defendant's mother's house. The victim described weapons that 
the defendant had either used or threatened to use, including 
a whip, a knife, brass knuckles and a rifle. These weapons 
were found in a subsequent police search of the defendant's 
living quarters. The examining physician detailed physical 
findings which supported the victim's claim of having been 
sodomized.
	
"The victim was borderline retarded, had sociopathic behaviors 
and psychological problems, but no reference to a report that 
the victim was a pathological liar was found.
	
"The defendant pled guilty to Penal Code 647.6 (child molest). 
The 1991-92 report makes additional comments about this case ... 
and alleges that the District Attorney's 'decision to prosecute 
was based solely on the child's accusation.' The files that were
reviewed contained references to far more physical evidence, and
in a civil suit brought by the victim against the County of San
Diego, an award of over $1 million was made. This fact is a
positive indication that the County felt their the case was
valid, and that the victim was truly a victim."

The 1991-92 Grand Jury Report:

"A step-grandfather was prosecuted for the felony child molest of
his 11 year old granddaughter. He and the family adamantly denied
the allegations. Again, DSS files available to the D.A. contained
contradictory information and evaluations of the child as a
pathological liar. There was also a child molest report involving
the natural father and the child. None of this information was
revealed to the defense. The child testified at the preliminary
hearing but was not cross-examined. At the time of trial, the
D.A. stated that the child could not be located. The preliminary
hearing testimony of the child was entered. The step-grandfather
was convicted. Between conviction and sentencing the defense
became aware that the child's whereabouts was known, and had been
known, by the D.A. The defense asked for a retrial. It has been
granted."

Review Findings:

"This case involves the molest of a 9-year-old girl by the
boyfriend of the girl's grandmother. After trial, he was
convicted of eight counts of violating Penal code 288(a) and he
was sentenced to six years in a state prison. His motion for a
new trial was denied. No reference in the reports contained in
the dependency file contained any reference to the victim as a
'pathological liar.' The girl's grandmother did accuse the girl
of being a pathological liar. No police report was ever made
regarding a molest of the victim by her father, after a report 
by the brother of an ex-landlord who said that he once saw some
'messing around' between the father and the victim, but the
incident was written up by the San Diego Police Department and
referred to Child Protective Services.
		
"The statement that the victim was not cross-examined at the
preliminary hearing is untrue, and the preliminary hearing
transcript shows such cross-examination. The prosecution found
out where the victim was after the trial, when the victim's
grandmother told the deputy where she was. Prior to this time,
the prosecution had no information on the whereabouts of the
girl. The defense did ask for a new trial, but the motion was
denied and the defendant was sentenced to prison."

Among other many "flaws" in the '91-'92 child abuse report, the
grand jury cited the statement that a chief deputy county counsel
pressed subordinates to file charges in cases based on dubious
allegations. The counselor in question, however, states that she
had overruled deputies on only four petitions of child abuse, and
all four petitions were sustained by the court.
		
The initial San Diego grand jury report also quoted the director
of Child Protection Services in San Diego, who denied that he had
ever said, "I don't think I'm as good as some doctors at
maintaining an objective outlook, but I do the best I can." This
was based on a misquote in a newspaper story. He emphasizes that
errors in "non-intervention" far outnumber "intervention" errors.
The '92-'93 grand jury review confirmed the observation with
statistical analysis demonstrating that, if anything, the system
is hardly "out of control," but errs most often in favor of the
parents:

"Of the current annual level of 68,000 plus calls entering the 
San Diego Child protection system, most are closed without 
action, many result in children being referred to 'diversion' or 
left at home relying on 'family preservation' programs, with only 
1,500 (at current rates) resulting in removal of the child and
dependency court petitions, less than half the number three years
ago... Complaints may be expected from adults who feel deeply
offended, regardless of the merits of the removal from the
viewpoint of the best interests of the child. The adults may be
articulate, or at least have articulate counsel. Adults can
organize politically, contribute to campaigns, issue press
releases, grant interviews to the media, testify before the
legislature and attempt to persuade the grand jury. In fact,
adults have done so -- particularly those accused of sexual 
abuse of their children.
   
"The troubling question is, who speaks for the errors made among
the 64,000 in which no action takes place? Here, there is no
articulate spokesperson. Even where there is counsel for the
child, that counsel is circumscribed by rules of confidentiality,
meant to protect the child. In addition, no civil remedy for the
child exists where the state fails to remove -- even where 
failure to do is gross negligence by the state."

The result of the original San Diego grand jury's "investigation"
has been, according to the subsequent grand jury report, that
Children's Services Bureau employees "were caused unneeded
difficulty in performing their jobs." Morale is "seriously
affected." Prosecutors and social workers identified by job title
and "accused of misconduct or worse have suffered greatly. And,
because of the prestige associated with the imprimatur of the
grand jury, the reports are now held up as authoritative proof of
a malaise in child protection services generally, and by
implication, those associated with the process."
		
The review panel also blamed the '91-'92 child abuse report and
attendant media coverage for creating an atmosphere in which
"errors are more likely to be made in the failure to remove
children than in their inappropriate removal," rendering abused
children defenseless. Contrary to the widely reported findings of
the original panel, the most significant flaw in the system was
determined to be a failure to "adequately investigate and
intervene where there is an indication of serious child abuse."
The intransigence of child services was found to contribute to
"substantial numbers of errors in failure to remove, failure to
intervene, failure to treat," with the result that many children
are "condemned to years of suffering."
		
Failure to separate a child from parents suspected of abuse can
culminate in tragic circumstances:

"There has been a great deal of attention placed on voluntary
diversion (family agrees to CSB contract terms in return for
having children left at home) in the last few months. The family
of Tiffany C. was offered a voluntary contract, which the father
signed, agreeing that he would move out of the house, attend
anger management classes, and never be alone with the children
(Tiffany and her sibling). Two months after the contract was
signed, Tiffany was dead of injuries sustained in her home.
   
"Natasha B.'s mother has borne six children. The youngest, and 
the only one still in the mother's custody is Natasha, now six 
months old. When Natasha was 11 days old, her mother signed a 
voluntary services case plan. On two separate occasions since, 
Natasha has suffered head injuries inflicted during her parents' 
domestic disputes."

The original grand jury detailed the handling of one child,
Alicia W., which has since become something of a cause
celebre in the "men's rights" movement. The review panel
acknowledged that errors were made in the deputy D.A.'s
investigation -- but as a result of statements made by Alicia 
and her parents themselves, and by confusion in verifying the
identity of the true perpetrator, not an inquisitional campaign
of persecution waged by the San Diego D.A.'s office, as the
'91-'92 report claimed. There was no question that Alicia had
been sexually abused. Alicia W. sustained serious injuries,
conclusively. But the first grand jury report neglected to
mention this fact and treated the molestation charge as
frivolous:

1991-92 Grand Jury Report:
  
"In the case of Alicia W., the father persisted in denying
allegations of molest, but the mother was repeatedly told by her
attorney and social worker that her only chance to reunite with
Alicia was to say that she believed her husband did it. The
child, who persistently described a strange perpetrator, was not
believed. In order to allow her 'the freedom to remember'
without trauma, visits with her parents were terminated until she
could come up with 'a more believable story.' This child was kept
in court-ordered therapy for two and a half years, twice a week,
'dealing with the molest.'"

Review Findings:
   
"Albert Carder was charged with [four] child molests ... in July
1989. The deputy district attorney assigned to the case filed
charges against Carder alleging molestations of these children.
Carder pled guilty just before his preliminary hearing. Although
the deputy D.A. had heard of the incident involving Alicia, which
had occurred in May 1989, no evidence had been presented to her
requesting additional charges against Carder since no evidence was
known to the police connecting Carder to that case at that time.
   
"In the case of the four victims mentioned above, the deputy D.A.
learned that Carder knew the victims and their mothers. The
attacks did not result in serious injury as they did with
Alicia... The explanation given by Alicia's parents for her
injuries was odd. Mr. W. told police that if he had done it, he
did not recall it. The detective assigned to the case had
received a report that Mrs. W. had told another person that her
husband had committed the molest.
   
"The grand jury report on Alicia W. unleashed an attack on [the]
deputy district attorney, accusing her of ethical violations. She
was threatened with criminal prosecution. This harmed her
professionally, socially and emotionally. This attack was
unjustified, based on sworn testimony given before the 1992-93
grand jury."

It is a horrific irony, in light of the many sexually-abused
children neglected by the legal system, that the specious
findings of the original grand jury report have been gleefully
aired by the corporate press, while the grand jury examination
issued in 1993 has been largely overlooked.
	 
It is serious enough that the 1991-92 "Families in Crisis" 
jury report defrauded San Diego's legal system into
adopting policies inimical to the lives of children. Equally
outrageous was the plagiarizing of the report by a grand jury 
in Merced County, a farming community in California's Central
Valley, explained by Charyl Borba, forewoman of the Merced
"investigation": "the cases we were involved with were very
similar. As far as this plagiarism stuff, that is not what we
did." But the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on July 9, 1992
that the original red herring had propagated: "The Merced report
is uncannily similar -- virtually word-for-word in most sections 
-- to the San Diego jury's report. Even some of the testimony 
quoted by the San Diego panel appears in the Merced jury's 
report." The pirating was discovered when officials of Merced 
County's Human Services Agency compared the documents, and 
concluded that at least three-fourths of the Merced report had 
been cribbed from the deception written under the watch of 
Captain MacFie in San Diego.

Appendix A.
-----------

The 1992-93 Grand Jury Report:

From the San Diego Union Tribune, January 30, 1993, p. A-1:

Grand Jury Says Child Protection Off Course

Mary Curran-Downey, Staff Writer

A shift in the county's child-protection philosophy to emphasize
keeping families together, rather than forcing them apart when
abuse is alleged, has left social workers confused and some
children vulnerable, a new grand jury report says.
		
In the report released yesterday, the panel says that policy
changes by the Department of Social Services -- in part the
result of recommendations from the 1991-92 grand jury -- have
made social workers unsure of their jobs and unclear about the
department's mission.
		
The current grand jury "found that (county) Children's Services
Bureau workers and supervisors, as well as other professionals,
felt anxious and concerned that the new department philosophy of
'family preservation' was taking precedence over the primary need
to protect children."
		
Unlike the 1991-92 grand jury, the current panel did not provide
a detailed list of suggested changes. Instead, it recommends that
county social service officials work toward developing a balanced
system that treats each case individually.
		
Ivory Johnson, who heads the Children's Services Bureau, said she
has always tried to steer her department on a middle course.

"I haven't read the complete (grand jury) report in detail, but
to strike a balance has always been my personal goal, always
looking to protect the child and, when possible, to protect the
family bond," Johnson said yesterday.
		
"I think the issue is how you go about doing it. It's not always
easy to get it right from the community's point of view."
		
Thomas W. McNamara, foreman of the current grand jury, said
recent tragedies -- notably the deaths of 13-month-old Tiffani
Cook and 4-month-old Patricia Glasgow -- raised concerns over how
some social workers may be interpreting department procedures.
		
In both cases, social workers had contact with the family when
previous abuse was suspected, but the children remained in their
homes. Tiffani Cook was beaten to death in February, and Patricia
Glasgow, according to preliminary reports, starved to death
earlier this month.
		
In both cases, the children's parents have been arrested and
charged in connection with the deaths.
		
Neither family, however, was part of the county's Family
Preservation Program, which targets certain families for
intensive in-home services, such as budgeting, parenting classes
and counseling.
		
McNamara said the report was written to assure county social
workers that they should put the much-publicized problems of the
past behind them.
		
"People were afraid to act because they would be criticized if
they did and criticized if they didn't (remove a child from a
home where abuse was suspected)," McNamara said during a news
conference.
		
Many of those problems were outlined in the 1991-92 grand jury's
report, which touched off a firestorm of media attention and led
to many changes within the social services department.
		
One of the most significant changes was the September 1992
decision by the county Board of Supervisors to shift to a
family-centered philosophy, which offers an array of services to
keep the family intact rather than place the child in a foster
home.
		
While praising the previous grand jury for helping to institute
some changes that were "clearly beneficial," the current grand
jury says the 1991-92 panel's investigation caused county workers
"unneeded difficulty in performing their jobs" and damaged
morale.
		
"The principal effect of these reports, ultimately, was to create
an environment in which many front-line social workers had the
perception that they must carry out a 'family reunification at
all costs' policy, with the result that a child's welfare could
be subordinated to that perceived policy," the new report says.
		
The report also expresses concern that cases cited by the 1991-92
grand jury did not paint an accurate picture of the facts and did
not represent the majority of cases handled by the social
services department. The previous grand jury reports focused on
sexual-abuse cases, according to the present panel, even though
sexual-abuse cases make up only 22 percent of all cases handled
by the department.
		
Carol L. Hopkins, a member of the 1991-92 grand jury, said she
was saddened by the report released yesterday. She said the
social services department should have been given an opportunity
to fully institute some of the recent changes without coming
under any more criticism.
		
She said the department has been "in chaos" in the past and has
only recently had strong leadership.
		
Hopkins also took the present grand jury to task for attempting
to subpoena former jury members to question them about files that
were missing from the grand jury office. Hopkins said the files
were in the safekeeping of the state Attorney General's Office.
		
"The grand jury looked at systems, it was not personal," said
Hopkins. "But the district attorney was so critical of us after
the release of (the 1991-92 report) that we were very concerned
about the level of defensiveness and rage.
		
"There was some concern also that the district attorney was 
being sued over some of these cases, and so we felt it was not
appropriate for those files to be left in a place that the
district attorney or county counsel would have access to the
complaints," Hopkins said. "We told the (current) grand jury
where they were ... there was no attempt to hide anything from
the grand jury."
		
Although at least three files are still missing, but McNamara
said he will not ask the District Attorney's Office for an
investigation.
		
The District Attorney's Office was criticized by the 1991-92
grand jury, but the new report supports District Attorney Ed
Miller's answer to the earlier report.
		
Miller called the new report a morale booster and said it helped
restore "some balance back in this subject matter which was
lacking."
		
One point that both grand juries agree on is that the county's
budget problems and dwindling funds will make the job of
protecting children and families more difficult, no matter what
the philosophy.
		
The county's shift in emphasis was due not only to the 1991-92
grand jury report but also to a critical report by the Juvenile
Justice Commission and a $175,000 study by the Child Welfare
League of America, which concluded that county child-protection
officials were referring too many cases to court.
		
In its report, the league, a child-advocacy group, concluded that
the county relied "much too heavily on legal proceedings as a way
of protecting children. It has become unnecessarily adversarial,
complicated, time-consuming and expensive."
		
The report pointed out that San Diego spent nearly $11 million in
1991-92 to pay for attorneys in Juvenile Court proceedings, a
threefold increase from 1987-88, even though the number of court
cases increased only 15 percent during that period. It compared
San Diego's costs to $1.2 million spent in Minneapolis, $2
million in Dallas and Phoenix, and $2.4 million in Philadelphia.
		
Michael Petit, the league representative, recommended that the
county shift millions of dollars from Juvenile Court and foster
care into a family preservation program.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B.
-----------

Carol Hopkins, 1991-92 Grand Jurist, and her Own
"Family Troubles"

From the San Diego Union-Tribune, December 4, 1994, p. E-1:

She RIGHTED WRONGS -- But Former Grand Juror Carol Hopkins,
Credited with Saving Families, Struggles with Her Own

Clark Brooks, Staff Writer

Carol Hopkins
	
Jim Wade was about to lose his family when he found Carol
Hopkins. Wade stood accused of raping his 8-year-old daughter,
and the county was trying to find her a permanent new home.
	
Hopkins was investigating child abuse cases for the 1991-92 San
Diego County grand jury. On Oct. 1, 1991, Wade wrote her a letter
asking for help.
	
At the time, Wade's daughter was in a foster home. The county
Department of Social Services, through its child protection
branch, was taking steps to keep her there. Citing evidence that
eventually cleared Wade, Hopkins convinced the agencies to back
off.
	
"Carol Hopkins saved my family," Wade said. "She has a huge
heart. She gave -- and still gives -- so much of her time to lost
causes."
	
But the lines separating her public and private lives began to
blur. While seeking justice for others, Hopkins became
romantically involved with her adviser on the grand jury, and her
own marriage started to unravel.
	
Hopkins, 50, headed the much-publicized grand jury health and
social services committee that produced a series of blistering
reports charging that many of the district attorney's child-abuse
cases were marred by false accusations and faulty investigations.
The jurors reported a pattern of leading questions that appeared
to uncover abuse where none existed.
	
The reports drew attention in the national media. Grand jury
coordinator Joanne Lord was besieged by requests for copies from
doctors, reporters, lawyers, psychologists and children's rights
organizations all over the country. The cost of the copies
exceeded her budget, and she finally had to stop printing them.
	
One of the reports looked exclusively at the case of Jim Wade,
then a Navy chief petty officer. Investigators "brainwashed"
Wade's daughter, the report said, until she finally -- and
falsely -- said her father had raped her.
	
County Child Protective Services, seeking the power to put Wade's
daughter up for adoption before he was formally charged,
scheduled a parental rights hearing. Hopkins went to Lana
Willingham, assistant director of the Department of Social
Services, with the results of DNA testing that eventually proved
Wade's innocence.
	
"We really appreciate Carol bringing that to our attention,"
Willingham said. "As a result of her providing that startling new
information, we were able to get a hearing with a different
focus. That began the process of getting his child back to him."
	
Wade has since been awarded more than $3.5 million from various
government agencies and individuals. He lives now with his wife,
Denise, and their daughter and son raising beef cattle in
Missouri.
	
Hopkins was frequently interviewed by newspaper and television
reporters about Wade and other cases. Seeking to counter the
negative publicity, District Attorney Edwin L. Miller issued a
report disputing the grand jury findings. It was published Oct.
30, 1992.
	
By then, Hopkins was a private citizen again, looking into the
plight of Dale Akiki, the Sunday school aide charged with 52
counts of child abuse and general mayhem at the Faith Chapel in
Spring Valley.
	
"How many times in your life do you get the chance to stand up
against something that's wrong? You have to fight against that
kind of injustice, even if you're not on the grand jury anymore,"
she said.
	
Hopkins was a fixture in court when Akiki went on trial in April
1993. She was joined almost every day by another Akiki supporter,
Rose Marie Royster, who admired Hopkins for her work on the grand
jury.
	
"Carol was kind of a hero to me," Royster said. "She is a very
dear person with a big heart. And she's one of the most
intelligent people I know."

'We shall overcome'

Carol Hopkins was a Navy brat who grew up in Coronado and came of
age during the '60s. She moved into a commune in San Francisco's
Haight-Ashbury district in 1968, along with her two daughters --
ages 1 and 3 -- by two naval officer ex-husbands.
	
While attending UC Berkeley, Hopkins began protesting the Vietnam
War and marching for civil rights.
	
"The first song my kids learned to sing," she said, "was 'We
Shall Overcome.'"
	
But as a young rebel, Hopkins set limits. She never used drugs,
she said, and she didn't confront the police. When the cops
started spraying tear gas at student protesters, Hopkins came
home to San Diego.
	
She worked as a teacher and married three more times during the
'70s. She and husband Sam Winner (1978-85) adopted a son, also
named Sam. He is 15 now and lives with Hopkins.
	
"I wish I would have been able to marry someone and stay married
for 30 years," she said, "but it just didn't work out that way."
	
She married David Hopkins, her sixth husband, in 1987. Both were
triathletes. They exchanged vows on Valentine's Day then set out
with some 200 guests for a 10K run. To be with his new bride,
David Hopkins left a law practice in the East and started anew in
San Diego.
	
"Up until recently," he said, "it was a very romantic story."

'Something wrong'

A grand jury is a group citizens nominated by judges to monitor
local government agencies. Hopkins wasn't sure she wanted to
serve on one, but once selected, she threw herself into the job.
Since she was not employed, she could -- and often did -- devote
12 or more hours a day to her grand jury work.
	
"The thing that has always concerned me most is justice," she
said.
	
When she started examining child abuse cases, Hopkins assumed she
would side with county prosecutors. "But right away," she said,
"we knew something was really wrong."
	
Many parents accused of abusing their children were considered
"in denial" and therefore guilty if they claimed to be innocent.
And when children said their parents didn't abuse them, it was
often considered a symptom of "child abuse accommodation
syndrome" and one reason they should be kept away from their
parents.
	
Miller was not a fan of Hopkins or the work she was doing. In one
meeting, she said, "He yelled at me, 'Who the hell do you think
you are, lady, criticizing my child abuse unit?'"
	
Contacted recently, Miller declined to discuss Hopkins. However,
Richard Macfie, Hopkins' grand jury foreman, attended that
meeting and others. Such outbursts from the district attorney
were not uncommon, Macfie said.
	
"I think we left the meetings with the pretty clear appearance
that Ed Miller was not at all pleased with we who represented the
grand jury," Macfie said, "particularly Carol Hopkins. He saw her
as a thorn in his side, and he has since."
	
When the grand jury decided to investigate the Wade case and
others, jurors dismissed their adviser, a deputy district
attorney, to avoid a conflict of interest. Their new adviser was
Gary Schons, chief deputy in the San Diego office of the state
attorney general.
	
Schons and Hopkins worked closely together. They saw each other
frequently as friends, Hopkins said, until their grand jury work
was completed. Then they started a romance.

'Inappropriate contact'

While Hopkins monitored the Akiki trial, the district attorney
monitored Hopkins.
	
Investigators cruised by her house in North Park and copied
license numbers. They interviewed her housekeeper's husband,
Carlos Morales, asking pointed questions about Gary Schons.
	
"We received information that there was inappropriate contact
with persons associated with the Akiki case," said A. Craig
Rooten, a deputy district attorney. Schons was not involved in
the Akiki case.
	
Rooten would not say if the license plate searches turned up any
suspicious visitors. He said Morales was questioned "because of
the allegations I previously mentioned."
	
Akiki was cleared of all charges in November 1993, and whisked
home in a limousine rented by 25 sheriff's deputies. With the
primary election approaching, Hopkins and Rose Marie Royster
turned their attention to the district attorney's race.
	
They both liked candidate Paul Pfingst, a civil attorney who once
was a prosecutor under Miller. Hopkins had spoken with him at the
courthouse and assumed he was a Democrat. Royster, a staunch
Republican, said she and her friends would not cross party lines
even in a nonpartisan race.
	
"Then Paul came to us one day and said, 'Well, I've got some good
news and some bad news,'" Royster said. He looked first at
Royster: "The good news is, I'm a Republican." Then he turned to
Hopkins: "The bad news is I'm a Republican."
	
"We both threw our support behind Paul," Royster said, "and
backed him all the way."
	
Their first victory came in the June primary when Pfingst
qualified for a November showdown with Judge Larry Stirling, and
Ed Miller lost his job effective Jan. 3, 1995.
	
"Ed Miller had to go, and I know I played some part in that,"
Hopkins said. "But for me, this never was a personal issue. I
feel sorry for Ed Miller, terribly sorry. He did a lot of good
for this county for a long time. But he couldn't admit failure,
and he didn't like criticism."

'No hidden agenda'

David and Carol Hopkins separated in February and are divorcing.
	
"In my life with David," Carol Hopkins said, "I think, 'How could
I let this happen?' I do have tremendous regrets."
	
She is planning to cut back on her volunteer work and get a job.
She would run for political office, say a seat on the board of
supervisors, if she thought she had any chance of getting
elected.
	
"I won't lie about my beliefs," she said. "I don't understand how
a civilized society can have a death penalty. I would open up the
borders. Obviously, I could not get elected. But given the tenor
of the times, being unelectable is an honor."
	
Hopkins is still seeing Gary Schons but isn't ready to make a
commitment to him, she said.
	
"Gary is a very nice man, and we've been through a lot together,"
she said. "I do love him, but I can't imagine right now marrying
anybody."
	
Schons declined to be interviewed.
	
The breakup has been very painful for David Hopkins. He did not
wish to discuss the divorce but said he is proud of what his wife
accomplished while on the grand jury.
	
"She surprised everyone because she got so much accomplished in
so little time," he said. "Because of that, they thought she had
a hidden agenda. She did not. She is extraordinarily intelligent
and energetic, and I don't think anybody in county government
ever came across anybody quite like her ..."

His voice trailed off, and he paused to collect himself.
	
"The irony," David Hopkins said after a moment, "is that she
saved the Wade family and perhaps many others, but the cost of
that was the destruction of her own family."


